§ 28. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his objective of reducing armament expenditure, why Her Majesty's Government forecast an increase of £265 million per year in such expenditure by 1967–68.
§ Mr. MaudlingThis figure, like all the others in the White Paper, is an approximate calculation of the prospective level of expenditure in 1967–68 on the basis of present policies and programmes; it does not represent a Government decision to spend this sum in that year.
§ Mr. AllaunWhy cannot the Government cut the arms burden as America and Russia are doing and as the Prime Minister is continually stating that they will do? Why at least cannot they freeze the present level instead of increasing it by £100 million a year? Are the demands of the military sacrosanct for so-called defence?
§ Mr. MaudlingThe demands of national defence are sacrosanct, which is not the same thing as the demands of the military. It is difficult to calculate ahead expenditure on defence. We all hope that there may be opportunities for reductions of armaments but on the other hand, as we have seen in the last few months, there are dangers of unforeseen increases. We think it right in working out the pattern of Government expenditure a few years ahead to assume that the proportion taken by defence will be about the same as at present.
§ Mr. AwberyMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman what economic theory he has been studying, whether it is Marshall or Marx, by which he can promise a reduction in his Budget and then proceed to increase the amount by £235 million? Are we to understand that in future when the Government say that there is to be a reduction there will be an increase, and when they say there is to be an increase there will be a reduction?
§ Mr. MaudlingI think that the hon. Gentleman is a little confused. That question should be addressed to his hon. Friend.